CRP (PD).No.1767 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 25.05.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

CRP (PD).No.1767 of 2022

and CMP.Nos.8888 and 8890 of 2022

U.Velmurugan

...Petitioner

Vs

1.N.Uthappan

2.U.Nagaraj

3.K.Seethalakshmi

...Respondents

Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, to set aside the returns dated 08.04.2022 and

21.04.2022, insisting on the plaintiff to add the Sub-Registrar and the

State as party defendants and comply with Sec.80 CPC notice and further

direct the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee at Tiruvallur to number the

plaint vide OS.SR.No.2413 of 2022 if the same is otherwise in order,

expeditiously and in accordance with law by allowing the above Civil

Revision Petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.S.Rajasekaran

1/ 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP (PD).No.1767 of 2022

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition to set

aside the returns dated 08.04.2022 and 21.04.2022 by the District

Munsif Court, Poonamallee, insisting the petitioner to implead the Sub-

Registrar and the State as party defendants in this suit and to comply

with Sec.80 CPC. The returns were based on the decision of this Court in

Saranya Vs. Sub-Registrar (S.A.(MD).No.306 of 2020 dated

27.08.2020). As per the aforesaid decision, a Sub-Registrar or a Registrar

constituted under the Registration Act, 1908, who are mere public offices

under the Government.

3. A reading of the above judgment seems to indicate that the

the suit was rejected on the ground that under Section 73 of the

Registration Act in cases where the Sub-Registrar has refused the

registration, an appeal before the Registrar can be filed within 30 days

and under Section 77 of the Registration Act, in such cases where the

Registrar has refused registration of the documents, the aggrieved party

2/ 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP (PD).No.1767 of 2022

should institute a Civil Suit before the appropriate Forum within 30 days

and implead the Sub-Registrar and the Government.

4. On perusal of the records it indicates that the petitioner

herein has challenged the settlement deed dated 13.05.2020 executed by

the first respondent (father of the petitioner) in favour of the second

respondent (brother of the petitioner), who in turn appears to have sold a

portion of the land, settled under the settlement deed dated 13.05.2020 to

the third respondent on 30.11.2020. The decision of this Court in

Saranya Vs. Sub-Registrar (S.A.(MD).No.306 of 2020 prima facie

does not apply to the facts of this case.

5. Considering the same, I direct the learned District Munsif

Court, Poonamallee to number the suit filed by the petitioner in

O.S.SR.No.2413 of 2022 and proceed accordingly. Needless to state that

even if the suit is numbered, the private respondents are at liberty to raise

all possible defence including the issue relating to mis-joinder or

non-joinder of necessary parties.

3/ 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP (PD).No.1767 of 2022

6. This Civil Revision Petition stands thus allowed as prayed

for with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petitions are closed.

25.05.2022

Index : Yes/No

Internet : Yes/No

Speaking Order : Yes/No

pvs/dna

Note: The Registry is directed to return the original

plaint, which was filed along with the typed set of papers,

to the learned counsel for the petitioner for

re-presentation before the Trial Court.

4/ 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP (PD).No.1767 of 2022

To

The District Munsif Court,

Poonamallee at Tiruvallur.

5/ 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP (PD).No.1767 of 2022

C.SARAVANAN

.J.

pvs/dna

CRP (PD).No.1767 of 2022

25.05.2022

6/ 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis